raiding an early castle

Gonna have to agree with this here.  There are plenty of times that castling not only isn't ideal, but will outright lose you the game.  Although, it's almost always a good idea to castle, you still have to think carefully about when and how to do it.  If there are plenty of weapons eyeing down the side available to castle, or already pushed pawns/pawns that can push with a gain of time, it's often really bad to castle to that side.

That's easy to say once you've seen it played.  You probably think it's obvious someone is playing King's Gambit when he moves his pawn to f4, but a lot of people playing King's Gambit are hoping you're not familiar with the move.

Good chess doesn't need the element of surprise.  Element of surprise is for cheapo tricks like the fool's mate.  They don't actually happen. So there's no reason to focus on them.  To play a strategy based solely on the fact the opponent might miss an easy win is just stupid.

And only a very few extremely low rated players play any one opening with the hopes the opponent hasn't seen a commonly known trap.  That's like playing QDA for the off chance the opponent might try to hold their pawn with a5. Just stupid.

Okay, for the 1300s who think my advice to "always" castle early is incorrect, I've edited it to "almost always". Happy? The point remains the same. Yes, there are moments where castling results in disaster, and yes, if there are few pieces on the board, the King is better left in the center so he can quickly join the fight. But in the middlegame, when a lot of the fighting takes place in the center, a king on e1/e8 is nearly always a liability. Happy?

There used to be a very lively debate about the continuation in Colle -v- O'Hanlon after Kg8 when I was young - I suppose computer analysis has resolved that debate by now. But in practical play, against Edgar Colle, holding the castled position was hard indeed. He was dogged by bad health but is regarded by many as one of the finest players never to have been world champion. The bishop sac in the O'Hanlon game just looks highly suspicious and young Carlsen I am sure would hold out - anyone else though my money would be on Colle.

Here is another (wholly sound this one)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242927

I would be ashamed to lose to Carlsen after 8.dxe5.

But by all means, keep playing cheap tricks for the "element of surprise" and wonder why your rating does not cross 1500 except in bullet.

Your reply shows a very shallow understanding of the element of surprise. It's not just for a cheapo quick win.  There is a psychological advantage to suprising your opponent. 

You may not get the "cheapo" win but you still benefit from having unnerved him.

I suppose you think using psychology in chess is cheap also.

Here you go... another very poor player with over a 1400 ranking, (before this game).

I'm sure he saw it coming... no surprise there.

I felt good about this one - played as Black - debunked an early castler.  Tear it apart and show me my mistakes, beyond what computer analysis may lend, please.  Thanks

you played a noob, simple as that

Dude, playing bad chess isn't really an "element of surprise." 1400 players suck, so beating them in online blitz games hardly proves your terrible strategy works.

@Iguanablade Blunder 7. .. Bh3.  You don't have an attack, you have no business sacing the bishop.  If your opponent had played gxh3, they would have likely been fine.  Yes the pawn cover is weakened.  But you don't have the capability to bring over enough pieces to make it stick.  This is the kind of sac where a strong player takes the material digs in, and wins later.  In fact, excluding the material down, black's center is dead after cxd4.  White will claim the center, have easy development, and be up a bishop while black must sort out his king safety before there is a counter strike.  Your center would be fine if the queen were on d8 or the pawns supported by knights, but neither of these is supported by your ridiculous sack the bishop and raid the kingside neglecting everything strategy.

This is coming from some one who plays gambits and will sac pieces, so I'm not objecting because I don't like sacs, I'm objecting because your sac isn't a good one.  Tossing the position in question into an engine for quick confirmation.  It played gxh3 and cxd4 as I suggested, and gave a rating of -3 for black.  This means in practical terms your sacrifice had no compensation.  Stronger players will call the bluff and avoid any unforced tactics.  For ideas on how to use sacs, I direct you to study of Mikhail Tal's games.  Where you will learn that a sac is only good if it gains you time, material quality, or fatally exposes the enemy king (all of which generally requires that a player DEVELOP HIS OR HER PIECES FIRST).

OK, let's put it that way :

I challenge you to a half-centaur game starting at the position before White's 17th move, where I will play 17.Be4.

You are allowed any kind of outside help you like, including computers and GMs, whereas I only have my brain.

If you lose, you will admit here that both players in the original game played poorly. If you win or draw, I will post on my profile page any message you like that does not result in a ban from chess.com and make any public statement you like that won't get deleted on this forum. Also, I will give you waffles.

Interested ?